Jurisdiction agreements – not just for contracting parties?
The Claimant also alleged that it had been induced to enter into a Facility Agreement by fraudulent misrepresentations for which the Defendants were jointly and severally liable and it attempted to rely on a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Facility Agreement in support of its argument that England was the appropriate forum for the determination of its tortious claims against the Defendants.
This bulletin focuses on the Supreme Court's comments on the impact of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in such a situation. All the members of the Supreme Court agreed that this was a relevant factor - although they attached varying degrees of importance to it and the majority ultimately upheld the first instance judge's decision that England was not the appropriate forum for the determination of the dispute.
- Banks and alternative lenders
- Alternative asset fund managers
- Executives and business leaders
- Institutional asset managers
- Private companies
- Private equity sponsors
- Public companies
- Real estate investors and developers
- Litigation and dispute resolution
- Financial services and markets disputes and investigations